What a statement !
Give reviewers maps, I agree however, what if the reviewer has no clue of these things we call structures ? I think for those people table 1 might still provide some justification. I would argue it should go into the supplement at least.
Jürgen
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:58, "Bernhard Rupp" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> We don't currently have a really good measure of that point where adding
> the extra shell of data adds "significant" information
>> so it probably isn't something to agonise over too much. K & D's paired
> refinement may be useful though.
>
> That seems to be a correct assessment of the situation and a forceful
> argument to eliminate the
> review nonsense of nitpicking on <I/sigI> values, associated R-merges, and
> other
> pseudo-statistics once and for good. We can now, thanks to data deposition,
> at any time generate or download the maps and the models
> and judge for ourselves even minute details of local model quality from
> there.
> As far as use and interpretation goes, when the model meets the map is where
> the rubber meets the road.
> I therefore make the heretic statement that the entire table 1 of data
> collection statistics, justifiable in pre-deposition times
> as some means to guess structure quality can go the way of X-ray film and be
> almost always eliminated from papers.
> There is nothing really useful in Table 1, and all its data items and more
> are in the PDB header anyhow.
> Availability of maps for review and for users is the key point.
>
> Cheers, BR
|